mmm$ 0Sh &&M^ :/!• y-< «»«^^S^ &7**A l5 ^T^^SlA? Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Duke University Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/glimpsesoffuturOOcrol GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE DRIFT OF THINGS DAVID GOODMAN CROLY (to be read now and judged in the year 2000) NEW YORK & LONDON G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS &|je Jinixktrbocfcer |)res3 1888 COPYRIGHT I?Y DAVID GOODMAN CROLY 1888 Press of G. P. Putnam's Sons New York THIS WORK is DEDICATED TO CLINTON W. SWEET MY BEST AND KINDEST FRIEND, WHO FIRST SUGGESTED ITS COMPILATION CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction i An Initial Talk 3 Our Political Future 7 Our Political Future — Continued 18 Our Coming Foreign Policy 32 Possibilities in the Way of Party Organizations . . 38 Religious Changes of the Future 43 The Relation of the Sexes . ' 48 Improving the Race 55 The Secret of the Jewish Race 62 A Discursive Chapter 69 Is a Universal Language Possible? 79 The Prospect for Architecture 87 Conceits about the Currency 93 Trusts, Corporations, and Government Work . . 99 What will Become of the Middle Classes? . . . 105 Anent the Labor Question no As to Irrigation 116 Journalism as it is and will be 122 A Body of Censors Proposed 129 The Fate of the Negro 133 The Tendencies of Education 139 The Destiny of New York City 144 What Science has in Store for us 151 Travelling through the Air 156 The Utilization of Dreams 161 Some Odd Conceits 167 A Word with a Critic 174 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. INTRODUCTION. The author of this work was fortunate enough to predict in 187 1 the panic of 1873, designating the railroad corporation which would first come to grief and the banking house which would probably be the first to suspend payment. He was also rather lucky in guessing the probable result of elections. This ability to forecast the future in a certain way was of use to him when man- aging a leading daily paper in New York. When ill- health forced him to give up daily journalism, his friend, Clinton W. Sweet, invited him to do some editorial writ- ing on the Record and Guide. A " Prophetic Depart- ment " was commenced, in which an attempt was made to forecast the future of business and politics. As it would not do to commit either the writer or the paper to authoritative statements, subjects were treated in a rather off-hand manner by a " Sir Oracle," the name, of course, implying that the writer was probably a bumptious sort of person, who was as likely to be wrong as right. The department proved attractive to the readers of the Record and Guide, and the predictions were often fortunate. In- deed so much interest was thus created that the publisher was frequently asked : Would it not be possible to print in 2 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. some permanent form such of the vaticinations of " Sir Oracle " as related to the remote future, or to the tendency and drift of things ? Of course much of the matter in the " Prophetic Department " was on current themes and had no permanent interest. In the following pages there is considerable new matter. Practically, the conversations have been re-written, and those which have been retained have been edited and grouped under appropriate heads. It is " Sir Oracle " who still answers the questions, but had the work been written de novo that name would not have been used, as it suggests a flippancy and self-suffi- ciency hardly befitting the scope of the subjects dis- cussed. D. G. C. AN INITIAL TALK. Reader. — So you propose to tell us something about the future ? Is that practicable ? Would it be desirable that we should know beforehand what is to take place in the world we live in ? I can see that there would be a mighty change in our lives and in the history of the world if our " fore sight " was equal to our " hind sight." But is not nature wise in hiding from us the secrets of the days to come ? Author. — I have no notion of being able to tell what the future has in store for us. The best we can do is to indi- cate the drift of things. Possibilities, and not certainties, are all we can hope for in speculating upon to-morrow and the day after. Unconsciously we do order our lives upon some theory of the future. We educate our children so they shall pursue a certain career either in business or in the professions. Every merchant and manufacturer buys goods or makes them, upon some theory as to their value when the time to dispose of them comes. Sagacity in business means a certain kind of prevision. It has seemed to me that this faculty of looking ahead has not been cultivated as it should have been, and this book has been written with a view to turning men's thoughts from dwelling so much on the past and pres- ent, and inducing them to think out what is likely to occur hereafter. 3 4 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. Reader. — But surely there can be no certainty in such speculations. The average man has not patience enough for such investigations, and the clever, ingenious, imagi- native man would most certainly become the victim of his own theories and illusions. I cannot see any data which would make prophecy reasonable, and of course you do not claim inspiration. Author. — I claim to be guided only by experience and ordinary common-sense. I shall make very grave, and what will seem to my readers twenty years from now, unaccountable mistakes, but I hope to call into existence a class of thinkers and writers, who will do far better than I with my present environment can hope to do. They should profit by my blunders. The test of science is said to be prevision. The astronomer can tell to a second the beginning of an eclipse a thousand years ahead. The chemist makes no mistakes ; when he puts together certain atoms of matter, he knows and announces beforehand what the result will be. It may be air or water or an explosive, but he is never at fault. Of course there can be no such certainty in predicting social phe- nomena, for the factors are so complex that unexpected results are sure to make their appearance. Nevertheless there are certain tendencies in history, which may give us some clew to the hereafter. It is this ground I propose to occupy. I expect to be at fault in many important matters ; but if I can induce men to think of conse- quences I shall have done what maybe a useful work. Reader. — What do you consider the most dangerous pit-falls likely to beset a social prophet? Author. — The most serious difficulty in speculating as to the future is the liability to imagine Utopias. From the " Republic" of Plato down to Edward Bellamy's AN INITIAL TALK. 5 " Looking Backward," all writers have indulged their fancy for ideal social states. We all know that the world might be a great deal better than it is ; and most of us have theories as to how the affairs of men could be bet- ter managed than they are, and insensibly we portray an imaginary state of things, instead of confining ourselves to the data afforded by the past experience of the race. Although the mass of mankind has made advances over the past, still, history shows that there has been retro- gression as well as progression. The races that were once dominant, such as the Egyptians, Grecians, and Romans, have fallen to the rear, while the barbarians of their times have come to the front. One word of caution. This conversation would seem to imply that my ambition was to give a general philosophy of history ; my aim is far more modest. I propose simply to take up such matters as are of everyday importance, and try to think out the future with regard to them. This will involve such questions as marriage, wealth and poverty, the tenden- cies of business, modern finance, the good and evil in our American institutions, as well as some guesses as to the future history of Europe. I should like, also, to give you another warning before I begin scraping my little hole through the fence which separates us from the future. You will find but small unity of construction either in the book as a whole or in each separate conversation. And this discursiveness is a necessary accompaniment to a work designed as this is. I have not intended to be in any way exhaustive. I only wish to offer a few sugges- tions on the future aspect of current topics ; and if you are not at any time able to see the connection between one of my suggestions and another, I can only give you as an excuse for my incoherency the old one that what O GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. is intended to create thought should never exhaust it. Emerson was once asked what connection there was be- tween two parts of one of his discourses. " None, friend," he answered, " except in the mind of God." I am afraid that in reading the following you will have to depend much on the mind of God. As I have said, the separate pieces have no unity of construction ; only unity of de- sign. Like a lot of logs, they all float down stream ; but often in so doing they will either clash together, or swing wide apart. In putting this book together, I am, I think, occupying new ground, and in a wilderness a few log cabins, tumble-down though they be, are pretty nearly as useful as a Queen Anne cottage, with all the " modern improvements." I offer you my huts. Seek shelter under them, if you will. OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. Statesman. — As our country has just about reached its hundredth year, it strikes me that the time is a fit one to glance over our past constitutional history so as to see what light it may throw upon the future. Thus far we have safely weathered all the gales that outward interfer- ence and inward dissension could create. But are we to be so fortunate during the next hundred years ? There have been great social and political changes in this coun- try in the past ; indeed, no nation has ever escaped them. We have every reason to believe, not only that these changes will continue in the future, but that they will be further reaching and more radical than any the world has yet seen. If this be true, some of the conditions that are to produce them must already be present to the eye of a discriminating observer. Can you point out any of them ? Sir Oracle. — Here ; wait a bit. You are going too fast. It is difficult to write about the earth in ten pages. Let me begin with your first question, and cast a rapid glance over the past, — a task that is rendered easy in view of a monologue, recently published by James Bryce, M.P., on the "Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville." Sharpsighted as Hamilton and his con- temporaries undoubtedly were, they made a sad mess of it in trying to point out the perils that threatened our 7 8 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. future. The opponents of the Constitution a hundred years ago predicted as the consequence to be expected from the creation of an effective Federal executive : (i) the destruction of the thirteen States as commonwealths ; (2) the creation of a despot in the person of the Presi- dent ; (3) the creation of an oligarchy in the Senatorial body ; (4) usurpation of executive functions, and diver- gence from the people on the part of the House of Rep- resentatives ; (6) a tendency to provoke foreign Avars. Hamilton's party, on the other hand, tried to avoid im- aginary ills. The evils which they chiefly feared were : (1) the spirit and power of faction ; (2) sudden impulses carrying the people away and inducing hasty and violent legislative measures ; (3) instability in foreign policy ; (4) ill-considered legislation ; (5) the encroachment of the Legislature — and especially of the House, as the holder of the purse — upon the other departments ; (6) a ten- dency on the part of the States to overbear the Federal Government ; (7) the oppression of the minority by the majority ; (8) State legislation threatening the validity of contracts and the security of property. It will be noted that the Federalists were much wiser in their vati- cinations than were the Jeffersonian Democrats. The States-rights theory which Hamilton and his friends dis- trusted was the rock upon which the ship of state was nearly wrecked. The Democrats were altogether wrong in their general theories. Our own statesmen were not, however, the only ones who were wrong in their estimates of what was dangerous in our political institutions. Mr. Bryce also points out that De Tocqueville, with all his philosophic insight, his accuracy in stating facts, and his lucidity of style, failed entirely to foresee the real perils in the future of this country, He did not comprehend the OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. g germs of States rights ; nor did the subsequent growth of the spoils system come within his vision. He was blind to the influence of such important matters as our system of party organizations, the power of money in politics, of our close commercial relations in binding the States together, thus producing a national sentiment. Statesman.— In view of the mistakes that such acute social philosophers as Hamilton and De Tocqueville have made in the past, it does not seem as if we pigmies of the present have much chance to succeed in a task in which they failed. Nevertheless, I judge that a man of our own day, who is willing to discard all personal precon- ceptions, and to investigate facts, as such, might be able to predict with a certain degree of accuracy our future perils, for, without any of the acuteness of De Tocque- ville, he would be in possession of a mass of organized data which the former was necessarily without. The facts of history were sufficiently well known in the French- man's time, but they were not sufficiently well under- stood. Hence I think, Sir Oracle, with full conscious- ness that you are making use of glasses provided by others, that you may peek a little into the gloom that enshrouds our future. Sir O.— I confess that the subject is one to which I have so often turned my attention, that I can talk, if not with confidence, at least with a certain degree of famili- arity. And it is all the more necessary that it should be considered, because no one seems to think of giving it attention. All over the world, indeed, and in Amer- ica quite as much as in other countries, modern changes of a social character are being carefully watched. To them I shall refer frequently. Just now I wish to confine myself to the political changes which are to be expected IO GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. within the limits of our own country. And as I say, the questions suggested by this head have hitherto been very largely disregarded. There seems to be a general ten- dency to let well enough alone, and to confine our po- litical controversies to the tariff and free whiskey, matters with which, by this time, every American mind must be saturated. Our worship of our Constitution was and is a species of "fetich " worship. Statesman. — Enough of this vague talk about change. Before it becomes worth any thing you must prove that changes are necessary. Sir O. — That is not, I believe, a particularly difficult task. Does it seem probable that a Constitution which was constructed for a population of three or four millions scattered along the Atlantic seaboard, would remain equally well adapted to a population of 65,000,000, spread over a far wider area, and knit together as tightly as a prevailing community of interest renders possible. Statesman. — Such changes as you speak of might in- deed necessitate modification of our laws, but surely the vital principle which lies at the foundation of our Consti- tution, the principle that every human being possesses an inherent right to freedom, — surely, I say, that principle remains good and true, no matter how large may be our area, how numerous our population, or how close our community of interest. Sir. O. — Your reply brings us to the root of the matter. That grand principle which you so confidently flaunt in my face, will not, I think, stand the test of criticism. It has been useful in its day ; but its day is over. Undeni- ably the founders of our Constitution were impregnated with it ; undeniably it has worked immense good in its time ; and undeniably it contains within it the germ of a OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. II far mightier truth. But the principle as it was understood by Jefferson was not a great principle at all ; but a very small one. It was not a universal truth ; but only a half truth, applicable merely to certain conditions. Our statesman got it from Rousseau ; and with Rousseau it was merely negative. He saw, as Luther had seen before him, and as Goethe saw after him, that the great war of the future was the war for the liberation of humanity from the customs and opinions of the past. Unfortu- nately, however, Rousseau thought this principle meant emancipation from all relations, instead of merely eman- cipation from past relations. Hence he exalts the in- dividual to the skies, and affirms the right of private judgment. Hence, too, he was the bitter enemy of any one who would limit the individual in any way, forgetting that it was not limitation as such that was undesirable, but only such limitations as were burdensome and ill- adapted to his conditions. This defect in Rousseau's principle has been pointed out recently by many different writers, and by none more effectively than Matthew Arnold, all of whose writings on social topics are simply vigorous polemics against the doctrine that men should be allowed to do as they like, instead of being taught to do as they ought. So much for the principle in general. In our own country it embodied itself in the practical maxim that "that government is best that governs least." The reason for this is obvious ; the individual must not be subjected to what is called the political yoke. Statesman. — Well ! is not that true enough ? The history of governmental legislation has been largely the history of a mass of gigantic errors. Recollect the mixture of pitiable inconsistency, unwarrantable inter- ference, and unjustifiable oppression which passed for 12 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. governmental action in France before the Revolution. Is any other illustration necessary ? Sir O. — Yes ! The example that you give to illus- trate your point is not in itself sufficient. A thousand instances both of wise and unwise governmental action may be given. The question is one to be settled, not by instances, but by arguments. Oppression, undoubt- edly, is a bad thing ; but it can exist only where the in- terests of the governing classes differ from the interests of the people. Such was the state of affairs in France previous to the Revolution ; but such is not the state of affairs at present, either in France or in the other civil- ized nations. That is to say, we have representative government to a greater or lesser degree over the larger part of Europe and all of America. Hence there is no danger that conditions will be such that the inter- est of the governors will differ in any radical way from the interests of the governed. It is true, just so long as selfishness exists in man, there will be acts of maladministration ; but at the present time I do not think that such acts are either numerous enough or important enough to constitute a presumption against government action. Statesman. — That is largely a matter of opinion. Mr. Herbert Spencer would probably think that in all doubtful cases there would be a presumption against governmental action. But, however that may be, I do not see why we need take the risk even of the acts of maladministration, which are confessedly unavoidable. Leave all doubtful cases to individual initiative, and thus the happiness of all will be procured by each pur- suing his own. Sir O. — Nonsense, the happiness of all can never be OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. I 3 procured by everybody acting for himself. If society consisted of a number of independent atoms without any essential connection one with another, then, indeed, the happiness of each would mean the happiness of all. It is scarcely necessary, however, to insist on the gratu- itousness of any such assumption. Society is an organic unity. The individual finds his true development only in acting for the good of the whole ; and if each acted for his trumpery little self only, war, not harmony, would result. Now, the function of government has largely been in the past to keep order within the state and to prevent aggression from without ; hence the right of taxation and the right to organize the courts has never been denied the central authority. So much, at least, was necessary to secure the happiness of the peo- ple. Moreover, in my opinion, two or three hundred years ago, or even one hundred years ago, but very little more interference was necessary, much less advisable. But such is not the case now, for the whole tendency of our modern mechanical inventions has been to make society more and more of an organism and less and less of a mere aggregation of separate atoms. Statesman. — After taking a breathing spell, will you explain that a little bit more in full. Sir O. — I will try, for the point is essential to my ar- gument. It amounts to this, viz.: that man is becoming more and more dependent on his fellows. And it fol- lows from this that action by the individual and for the individual must become more and more limited in extent ; or, to put it more correctly, state action must become more and more important and far reaching relative to the action of the individual. I have time to pause only over one instance to illustrate this. 14 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. Take the case of the railways. Their efficient and economical management concerns not the individual owners only, but the whole community. It is mon- strous that these owners should be allowed to rob the people in the way they do. If our railways had been built economically, and had they been capitalized for the sum which they have cost, their earnings would fully suffice to pay five per cent, on the whole capital stock at half the present cost to the traveller and shipper. In other words, railways, telegraphs, and all corporate en- terprises which deal with immense sums of capital have so important a social element in them, and a social ele- ment which is so constantly growing, that government action is bound to become more and more employed. I by no means want to imply that all government action must be right ; but only that there is a growing pre- sumption in its favor. Statesman. — Your prediction is then that our govern- ment will become more and more paternal. Sir O. — Yes ; not only our government but all govern- ments are taking on new and varied duties. When most of the nations were founded the king or emperor had very extensive powers. He led his armies, treated directly with foreign powers, was his own treasurer, and filled as far as possible all the functions of the State himself. But as time rolled by a prime-minister appeared to deal with foreign nations, then a treasurer to collect the taxes, a minister of justice in due time was recognized, and finally marshals and generals to lead the different armies. Compare, for instance, the cabinets of King Clovis and Louis XI. of France with that of the present French Republican government. You will find that the tendency is towards the multiplication of depart- OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. I 5 ments at the seat of governments as the nation grows. Notwithstanding his royal prerogatives how little real authority, for instance, had Edward I. of England, com- pared with a Gladstone or a Salisbury, the uncrowned kings of to-day. The cabinets of the latter represent nearly all the great interests of the nation. Notice how we in the United States are steadily adding to the func- tions of the general government. We have now our educational, agricultural, statistical, weather, and other bureaus, not to speak of the Inter-State Commerce Com- mission, none of which were thought of in the time of Washington and Adams. Within a few years we will have cabinet secretaries, representing the larger inter- ests of the nation, such as agriculture, transportation, and probably labor. The Blair education bill may not become a law while Grover Cleveland is President, but it is as certain as destiny that the education of the nation will finally be placed under the oversight of the central government. Statesman. — As a matter of fact what you say is undoubtedly true. But in affirming that the tendency is a good one you have Herbert Spencer and many other philosophers against you. Sir O. — It is the fact that I am insisting on at present. I appeal to the common-sense of our readers if it is not true that what may be called state socialism is gaining ground. It is within my own memory when the educa- tion of children was a family affair. When it was first proposed to tax the property of the state to educate all the children, rich old bachelors and spinsters as well as all large property-holders protested against the rank injustice of the matter. " Why," they asked, "should we be taxed to educate the children of the mass of the 1 6 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. community ? This is state socialism pure and simple " ; and so, indeed, it is ! Then look at the roads of the country. It is not so many years since the toll-gate was to be found at every crossing, showing that they were private property ; now they are free highways, made so by the state. Look at our public parks. The real estate of the rich is taxed to furnish new pleasure grounds for those who have no property. The dispensaries give not only medical advice but medicines to the poor free of charge. The art galleries of the world are thrown open to everybody, and the very palaces of the kings in Europe are no longer their own, but are free to the multitude and serve as local museums and places of popular resort. Statesman. — But is not Herbert Spencer justified in protesting against this absorption of authority by the cen- tral powers ? This state socialism or paternalism, does it not destroy local self-government and paralyze indi- vidual initiative ? In other words, if the head gets too big will not the limbs be atrophied ? Sir O. — The great evolutionist should have paid more attention to the lessons of his own studies in biology. From that science he would learn that as the head of the animal enlarges its limbs become more alive ; in other words, the whole organism grows more active. Every new function in the body of the animal has its corre- sponding nerve centre in the brain, and this is what is tak- ing place in all civilized nations. The local circulation is stimulated, not weakened, by the increased activity of the brain. The individual bee is the better protected because the good of the hive is the first consideration of every colony of honey-makers. Herbert Spencer, when a very young man, had the misfortune to write a book entitled " Social Statics," in which he committed himself fully OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. \J to the Manchester school of political economy. These writers saw only half a truth, and Mr. Spencer's philos- ophy, as applied to government and business, is conse- quently as hopelessly wrong as was the Ptolemaic astronomy. The Democratic party, in following the ignis-fatuus of State-rights — that is, of home rule as against Federal authority, — nearly wrecked the nation in the great civil war. In truth the municipalities and the State are more powerful than ever they were, nothwithstanding the growing paternalism of the central government. OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. Continued. Statesman. — Well ! we dwelt some time on the first topic we started, Sir Oracle, suppose we try to be more specific and brief now. What is the most important po- litical danger that you fear ? Sir Oracle. — The lack of flexibility in our Constitu- tion. It is almost impossible to change it, except, as I have said, under the stress of some great calamity. England is lucky in having no written Constitution. An act of Parliament enables the government to meet any emergency ; but our methods of amendment are so dila- tory, and so difficult is it to get our people to act together, that our governmental machine is getting out of repair. It is impossible to make its various parts conform to ex- isting conditions. Statesman. — Specify some of the defects in our Con- stitution ? Sir O. — Well, take our Electoral College. Originally that was intended to be a real deliberative body. It was to choose a President for the people. But in practice the College obeys the behests of the party Conventions. These great organizations, which determine who shall be the candidates, are utterly unknown to our Constitution. They are extra-legal, but none the less potent for all that. Statesman. — What other trouble do you see in the future ? 18 OUR POLITICAL FUTURE. 1 9 Sir O. — There are too many questions involved in that inquiry to do them all justice in a short conversa- tion. I might mention cursorily the practical denial of justice in our courts. In an age of steam and lightning communication our tedious legal forms waste the time and money of a very busy people. Our Supreme Court is three years and a half behind its business. Every murderer can now have two or three trials. Thus time is wasted and costs continue to increase. By-and-by the people will not stand it, and a social convulsion may re- sult. Statesman. — Any thing else? Sir O. — The growth of corporate power is another serious matter. The recent discussions as to trusts and other great monopolies throw a great deal of light on that subject. Then the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, which is steadily going on, will unquestionably lead to a grave agitation which may have vital conse- quences on the future of the country. I am quite sure that the American of the twentieth century will not con- sent to live under a merely selfish plutocracy. Statesman. — You have said nothing about the spoils system ? Sir O. — That was one of the curses of the past, and will trouble us for some time in the future. But the ten- dency in this country is toward civil-service reform. The politicians of both parties do not like any change from the old bad ways, but the public sentiment of the nation insists upon it, and before the close of this cen- tury I expect to see our civil service as honest and as efficient as our military and naval services have always been. Moreover, the adoption of the Australian system of voting will do much to purify our elections. 20 GLIMPSES OF THE FUTURE. Statesman. — But these changes are generally of ra- ther small importance. Sir O. — I know it. So I pass from these merely po- litical questions to the social questions that underly them. Our Constitution would not need to be flexible, if our social state would forever remain the same. The time for radical changes must come ; and such changes cannot be brought about under our Constitution. Hence I think that a new constitution is inevitable some time. How radical the changes will be I cannot pretend to say. The necessity for some readjustment of the relations be- tween capital and labor will, I think, bring them about. I do not believe the poor are growing poorer, though I do hold that the very rich will become still richer. It is the middle class which will become reduced in numbers. A few of the brainiest or the more lucky will find their way into the ranks of the very rich, but the great bulk of them will be forced down into the artisan class. They will leaven the mass of workingmen, and the latter will be greatly benefited by the energy and leadership of their former employers. The nineteenth-century indus- trial machinery has failed in one particular. The mass of the working class have not profited as much as they should have done by the wonderful improvements in the mechanic arts. A disproportionate share of the saving effected by improved machinery has gone to the capital- ist class. Of course the workers are better fed, housed, and clothed, have shorter hours and more comforts than their forefathers, who lived earlier in the century, and bi f